[Dialogue] Crawford, TX Newspaper endorsement

Wed Oct 6 00:23:46 EDT 2004

Forwarded by Jann McGuire

Crawford, Texas Newspaper Endorsement

Today, John Kerry and John Edwards received the endorsement of George Bush’s 
hometown newspaper, The Lone Star Iconoclast. The editor, Mr. Leon Smith, is 
also the publisher of the Clifton Record which endorsed George W. Bush and Dick 
Cheney in 2000. The Lone Star Iconoclast is a weekly newspaper in Crawford 
and goes on newsstands Tuesdays and is home delivered on Wednesdays. 

 Kerry Will Restore American Dignity

 2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement

 Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had 
promised that, as President, he would:

 • Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal 
irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.

• Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans’ benefits and military pay.

• Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 
percent.

• Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, 
by policy encourage their departure.

• Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without 
competitive bids.

• Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and

• Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of 
the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take 
generations to repay.

These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took 
office.

The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the 
things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.

Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the 
things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality 
that Kerry says our country needs.

Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives 
to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating state of the 
American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our 
founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding terrorism and Iraq.

President Bush has announced plans to change the Social Security system as we 
know it by privatizing it, which when considering all the tangents related to 
such a change, would put the entire economy in a dramatic tailspin.

The Social Security Trust Fund actually lends money to the rest of the 
government in exchange for government bonds, which is how the system must work by 
law, but how do you later repay Social Security while you are running a huge 
deficit? It’s impossible, without raising taxes sometime in the future or 
becoming fiscally responsible now. Social Security money is being used to escalate 
our deficit and, at the same time, mask a much larger government deficit, 
instead of paying down the national debt, which would be a proper use, to guarantee 
a future gain.

Privatization is problematic in that it would subject Social Security to the 
ups, downs, and outright crashes of the Stock Market. It would take millions 
in brokerage fees and commissions out of the system, and, unless we have 
assurance that the Ivan Boeskys and Ken Lays of the world will be caught and 
punished as a deterrent, subject both the Market and the Social Security Fund to 
fraud and market manipulation, not to mention devastate and ruin multitudes of 
American families that would find their lives lost to starvation, shame, and 
isolation.

Kerry wants to keep Social Security, which each of us already owns. He says 
that the program is manageable, since it is projected to be solvent through 
2042, with use of its trust funds. This would give ample time to strengthen the 
economy, reduce the budget deficit the Bush administration has created, and, 
therefore, bolster the program as needed to fit ever-changing demographics.

Our senior citizens depend upon Social Security. Bush’s answer is radical and 
uncalled for, and would result in chaos as Americans have never experienced. 
Do we really want to risk the future of Social Security on Bush by spinning 
the wheel of uncertainty? 

In those dark hours after the World Trade Center attacks, Americans rallied 
together with a new sense of patriotism. We were ready to follow Bush’s lead 
through any travail.

He let us down.

When he finally emerged from his hide-outs on remote military bases well 
after the first crucial hours following the attack, he gave sound-bytes instead of 
solutions. 

He did not trust us to be ready to sacrifice, build up our public and private 
security infrastructure, or cut down on our energy use to put economic 
pressure on the enemy in all the nations where he hides. He merely told us to shop, 
spend, and pretend nothing was wrong.

Rather than using the billions of dollars expended on the invasion of Iraq to 
shore up our boundaries and go after Osama bin Laden and the Saudi Arabian 
terrorists, the funds were used to initiate a war with what Bush called a more 
immediate menace, Saddam Hussein, in oil-rich Iraq. After all, Bush said Iraq 
had weapons of mass destruction trained on America. We believed him, just as we 
believed it when he reported that Iraq was the heart of terrorism. We trusted 
him.

The Iconoclast, the President’s hometown newspaper, took Bush on his word and 
editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper’s publisher promoted Bu
sh and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC interview during the time 
that the administration was wooing the support of Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Again, he let us down.

We presumed the President had solid proof of the existence of these weapons, 
what and where they were, even as the search continued. Otherwise, our troops 
would be in much greater danger and the premise for a hurried-up invasion 
would be moot, allowing more time to solicit assistance from our allies.

Instead we were duped into following yet another privileged agenda.

Now he argues unconvincingly that Iraq was providing safe harbor to 
terrorists, his new key justification for the invasion. It is like arguing that America 
provided safe harbor to terrorists leading to 9/11.

Once and for all, George Bush was President of the United States on that day. 
No one else. He had been President nine months, he had been officially warned 
of just such an attack a full month before it happened. As President, u
ltimately he and only he was responsible for our failure to avert those attacks.

We should expect that a sitting President would vacation less, if at all, and 
instead tend to the business of running the country, especially if he is, as 
he likes to boast, a “wartime president.” America is in service 365 days a 
year. We don’t need a part-time President who does not show up for duty as 
Commander-In-Chief until he is forced to, and who is in a constant state of 
blameless denial when things don’t get done.

What has evolved from the virtual go-it-alone conquest of Iraq is more 
gruesome than a stain on a White House intern’s dress. America’s reputation and 
influence in the world has diminished, leaving us with brute force as our most 
persuasive voice.

Iraq is now a quagmire: no WMDs, no substantive link between Saddam and 
Osama, and no workable plan for the withdrawal of our troops. We are asked to go 
along on faith. But remember, blind patriotism can be a dangerous thing and 
“spin” will not bring back to life a dead soldier; certainly not a thousand of 
them.

Kerry has remained true to his vote granting the President the authority to 
use the threat of war to intimidate Saddam Hussein into allowing weapons 
inspections. He believes President Bush rushed into war before the inspectors 
finished their jobs. 

Kerry also voted against President Bush’s $87 billion for troop funding 
because the bill promoted poor policy in Iraq, privileged Halliburton and other 
corporate friends of the Bush administration to profiteer from the war, and 
forced debt upon future generations of Americans.

Kerry’s four-point plan for Iraq is realistic, wise, strong, and correct. 
With the help from our European and Middle Eastern allies, his plan is to train 
Iraqi security forces, involve Iraqis in their rebuilding and 
constitution-writing processes, forgive Iraq’s multi-billion dollar debts, and convene a 
regional conference with Iraq’s neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for 
Iraq’s borders and noninterference in Iraq’s internal affairs. 

The publishers of the Iconoclast differ with Bush on other issues, including 
the denial of stem cell research, shortchanging veterans’ entitlements, 
cutting school programs and grants, dictating what our children learn through a 
thought-controlling “test” from Washington rather than allowing local school 
boards and parents to decide how young people should be taught, ignoring the 
environment, and creating extraneous language in the Patriot Act that removes some 
of the very freedoms that our founding fathers and generations of soldiers 
fought so hard to preserve.

We are concerned about the vast exportation of jobs to other countries, due 
in large part to policies carried out by Bush appointees. Funds previously 
geared at retention of small companies are being given to larger concerns, such as 
Halliburton — companies with strong ties to oil and gas. Job training has 
been cut every year that Bush has resided at the White House.

Then there is his resolve to inadequately finance Homeland Security and to 
cut the Community Oriented Policing Program (COPS) by 94 percent, to reduce 
money for rural development, to slash appropriations for the Small Business 
Administration, and to under-fund veterans’ programs.

Likewise troubling is that President Bush fought against the creation of the 
9/11 Commission and is yet to embrace its recommendations. 

Vice President Cheney’s Halliburton has been awarded multi-billion-dollar 
contracts without undergoing any meaningful bid process — an enormous conflict of 
interest — plus the company has been significantly raiding the funds of 
Export-Import Bank of America, reducing investment that could have gone toward 
small business trade.

When examined based on all the facts, Kerry’s voting record is enviable and 
echoes that of many Bush allies who are aghast at how the Bush administration 
has destroyed the American economy. Compared to Bush on economic issues, Kerry 
would be an arch-conservative, providing for Americans first. He has what it 
takes to right our wronged economy.

The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our 
present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. 
We need to be moving in the opposite direction.

John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American people and 
can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill in America the 
dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us well as a highly decorated 
Vietnam veteran and has had a successful career as a district attorney, 
lieutenant governor, and senator.

Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, good 
sense, and guts to make it happen. 

That’s why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his 
hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the 
country. 

The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry.

http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/ads.htm 

Home